Bibliographic record
Abstract
En combinant les apports de la sociologie politique du droit et de la sociologie des mouvements sociaux, cet article s’intéresse à la place du droit dans la défense des causes, à partir d’une analyse des modalités variables d’engagement des défenseurs de la cause des femmes dans les débats ayant trait au règlement juridique des conséquences financières du divorce en France et au Québec. L’analyse comparative montre que les dispositions concernées (prestation compensatoire, pensions alimentaires, définition des régimes matrimoniaux) occupent une place beaucoup plus centrale dans les luttes en faveur de la cause des femmes au Québec qu’en France. De façon corollaire, le sens attribué à ces dispositions juridiques diffère : perçues en France comme des instruments de protection et de maintien des femmes dans la dépendance, elles sont utilisées au Québec comme l’outil d’une justice de genre. Deux pistes explicatives de ces différences sont explorées, l’une centrée sur le profil social des militantes, et l’autre sur les significations culturelles véhiculées par le droit.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".